>I think you're right about Tarantino - he's absorbed a >broader spectrum of art including a lot of revered highbrow >stuff, so his work comes off as more than just cut-rate >recycling of material that had questionable merit to begin >with. Another director who strikes me this way is the guy who >directed the recent horror flick "It Follows." I don't know >anything about him or his influences, but the direction on >that movie was much better than it needed to be, and indicated >that he's really paid attention to influences other than just >the usual ones (e.g. John Carpenter and all the subsequent >movies that stole from John Carpenter).
it follows was cool, but it mostly seemed like a horror movie for people that dont normally like horror movies. a bit arthouse, but mostly just applying indie values to horror, which on one hand was nice for the character focus, but also kinda apologetic about the actual scary parts. tarantino at least - for better or worse - still delivers the blood and guts and violence and isnt ashamed about that (he prob relishes it a bit too much if anything).